• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An American Indian visits her first NRA convention

Josie said:
From Gandhi to guns: An Indian woman at the NRA - CNN.com

View attachment 67216935

Apparently she didn't learn that you shouldn't pose for pictures with your finger on the trigger.
Click to expand...

I begin with this question: "Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?"
Click to expand...

Apparently she doesnt have knifes or scissors or a pillow or water

Must be a horrible existence where you refuse to own any object that could possibly kill another human
 
Crovax said:
Apparently she doesnt have knifes or scissors or a pillow or water

Must be a horrible existence where you refuse to own any object that could possibly kill another human
Click to expand...

Did you read the article fully? I thought it was a very good piece myself. Try and put yourself in her shoes. Knives and scissors, pillows and water are not designed by humans for killing. Guns are. I can understand her perspective. Even if I don't agree with it, I can understand it. I have no problem with people not wanting something that is specifically designed to kill another human being. I would never denigrate them so long as they do not attempt to take away a persons Right to own that same thing. And this woman was not attempting to do that. She was truly trying to understand a concept that is foreign to her. At least she is trying. Unlike a lot of the gun control types.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Did you read the article fully? I thought it was a very good piece myself. Try and put yourself in her shoes. Knives and scissors, pillows and water are not designed by humans for killing. Guns are. I can understand her perspective. Even if I don't agree with it, I can understand it. I have no problem with people not wanting something that is specifically designed to kill another human being. I would never denigrate them so long as they do not attempt to take away a persons Right to own that same thing. And this woman was not attempting to do that. She was truly trying to understand a concept that is foreign to her. At least she is trying. Unlike a lot of the gun control types.
Click to expand...

The piece was okay my point was that her opening question was so ignorant and off putting it's doubtful that she could gain any perspective on the subject. And btw the knife was designed for killing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Did you read the article fully? I thought it was a very good piece myself. Try and put yourself in her shoes. Knives and scissors, pillows and water are not designed by humans for killing. Guns are. I can understand her perspective. Even if I don't agree with it, I can understand it. I have no problem with people not wanting something that is specifically designed to kill another human being. I would never denigrate them so long as they do not attempt to take away a persons Right to own that same thing. And this woman was not attempting to do that. She was truly trying to understand a concept that is foreign to her. At least she is trying. Unlike a lot of the gun control types.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell when someone doesn't read the full article. However, her closing comments made it obvious she wants things to change in the U.S.
 
From the article:

"Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?" The answers are varied, but they center on three main themes: freedom, self-defense and sport.
Click to expand...

The first two answers are the basic foundation, the root of the Second Amendment, and the basis of a right to revolt stated in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't care if she, or anyone else chooses not to own firearms; I don't own any myself.

The issue has never been about a requirement to own a weapon; supporters of an individual right like myself are all about the right to make that choice without undue restrictions.

Gun control advocates are all about removal of choice in the name of safety/security, usually by incremental "rational" restrictions.

The issue remains having the right to own one if and when I or anyone else so chooses. Choose not to keep and bear arms, fine with me. Just don't try to tell me I can't do so because "safety."
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
The piece was okay my point was that her opening question was so ignorant and off putting it's doubtful that she could gain any perspective on the subject. And btw the knife was designed for killing.
Click to expand...

It is only ignorant to you. Try and look at things from her perspective.

And yes, the knife was designed for killing. It was also designed for cutting meat. A kitchen knife was not designed for killing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is only ignorant to you. Try and look at things from her perspective.

And yes, the knife was designed for killing. It was also designed for cutting meat. A kitchen knife was not designed for killing.
Click to expand...

I also believe that Gandhi noted that one of the most disgusting things the white colonial masters-in both India and South Africa did-was to disarm the native population
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is only ignorant to you. Try and look at things from her perspective.

And yes, the knife was designed for killing. It was also designed for cutting meat. A kitchen knife was not designed for killing.
Click to expand...
I own two guns, to date, one has killed a feral hog (filled a freezer and many bellys) and quite a few empty beer cans in the woods have felt there wrath.

I bet the vast majority of guns are never used for homicide at all.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
I own two guns, to date, one has killed a feral hog (filled a freezer and many bellys) and quite a few empty beer cans in the woods have felt there wrath.

I bet the vast majority of guns are never used for homicide at all.
Click to expand...

true-there are 300-400 million firearms in the USA and maybe about 8-10K homicides each year
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is only ignorant to you. Try and look at things from her perspective.

And yes, the knife was designed for killing. It was also designed for cutting meat. A kitchen knife was not designed for killing.
Click to expand...

Nothing in her perspective makes asking a hostile question a good icebreaker. There are plenty of ways to ask why someone owns a gun without automatically putting them on the defensive.
 
Josie said:
From Gandhi to guns: An Indian woman at the NRA - CNN.com

View attachment 67216935

Apparently she didn't learn that you shouldn't pose for pictures with your finger on the trigger.
Click to expand...

It's a common mistake we all have made, easily corrected and not something to harp on.

Sad to say reason and thinking are not part of gun control supporters strong points. They much prefer to pander to the fear and hatred gun control induces. To them it is better to fear guns and be reliant on the false hope and promise the police will protect them. Yet nowhere in the world do the police have such a duty and simply cannot offer every individual protection. Reason alone says what gun control promises is a lie.

What can one say to people who have the wisdom to question but well done.

What can one say to people who do not have the wisdom to educate those who do not know better?
 
Crovax said:
Nothing in her perspective makes asking a hostile question a good icebreaker. There are plenty of ways to ask why someone owns a gun without automatically putting them on the defensive.
Click to expand...

There are times when I need to remind myself it is better to encourage what is right and good than to be negative and attack the irrelevant mistakes others make in an effort to know more. The only basis they have is a gun control education because firearm owners could not be bothered to educate at all.

It is not the public's fault there is so little correct information in the media, it is firearm owners fault for not providing and demanding. We need to take every opportunity to educate and not to vent our disappointment and anger at ignorance.

Thanks for the reminder.
 
Crimefree said:
There are times when I need to remind myself it is better to encourage what is right and good than to be negative and attack the irrelevant mistakes others make in an effort to know more. The only basis they have is a gun control education because firearm owners could not be bothered to educate at all.

It is not the public's fault there is so little correct information in the media, it is firearm owners fault for not providing and demanding. We need to take every opportunity to educate and not to vent our disappointment and anger at ignorance.

Thanks for the reminder.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of info out there, for those that wish to know. What do you suggest gun owners do? The NRA does what they can.

If someone makes up their mind "guns are bad" that person is hard to reach. I do agree, getting rid of the ignorance, would help. Informed voters are harder to lie to.
 
TurtleDude said:
I also believe that Gandhi noted that one of the most disgusting things the white colonial masters-in both India and South Africa did-was to disarm the native population
Click to expand...
There are different perspectives. Gandhi's perspective was one that I will never understand or adopt. Gandhi's statement that the Brits and others should not raise a hand to fight the Nazis, even if it meant being driven off the White Cliffs or watching as their women were raped and murdered...it just leaves me shaking my head. His letter writing campaign with Hitler was I believe embarrassing. Hitler was not stopped by peace and love...he was stopped by violent oppression. Gandhi's world view was always dependent on the other person being as good as or a better man than you. His position on personal defense... If the choice is between taking one’s own life and that of the assailant. which would you advise? "When it is a question of choice between killing oneself or the assailant, I have no doubt in my mind that the first should be the choice."...I shrug.

I thought the article was objective. that was good. it presented that there are many sides to the issue. Thats positive. I didnt see any of it as a slam. From a CNN source...surprising.
 
Crovax said:
Nothing in her perspective makes asking a hostile question a good icebreaker. There are plenty of ways to ask why someone owns a gun without automatically putting them on the defensive.
Click to expand...

If you consider it hostile perhaps its because you are assuming its hostile? Try and look at the question from her POV. Her culture is one that does everything it can to instill non-violence. Ghandi, Hinduism, Buddhism. All preach peace and not harming other individuals and all are major components in India where she was raised (for instance 90% of the worlds Hindus live in India). Coming from that, I do not see her question as hostile. I see it as genuine curiosity about an idea that is, quite frankly, alien to her. How else would you have her ask?
 
TurtleDude said:
I also believe that Gandhi noted that one of the most disgusting things the white colonial masters-in both India and South Africa did-was to disarm the native population
Click to expand...

I doubt that was very hard to do as I don't recall India or SA having gun cultures.

Im sure colonial governors wrote laws forbidding gun possession or ownership, but that would have been more to control opposition groups that may have been armed or could be armed.

Every occupier controls the population.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If you consider it hostile perhaps its because you are assuming its hostile? Try and look at the question from her POV. Her culture is one that does everything it can to instill non-violence. Ghandi, Hinduism, Buddhism. All preach peace and not harming other individuals and all are major components in India where she was raised (for instance 90% of the worlds Hindus live in India). Coming from that, I do not see her question as hostile. I see it as genuine curiosity about an idea that is, quite frankly, alien to her. How else would you have her ask?
Click to expand...

I not saying the question itself was bad but as an opening question its pretty obvious that it is intended to put someone on the defensive. Maybe ask why someone thinks the most important reason to own a gun is and then follow it up with questions about safety concerns. It has nothing to do with perspective, this isnt some random indian woman going around and asking questions this a professional journalist who has been a professional american journalist for 34 years, she should know what a slanted question she was asking.
 
1750Texan said:
I doubt that was very hard to do as I don't recall India or SA having gun cultures.

Im sure colonial governors wrote laws forbidding gun possession or ownership, but that would have been more to control opposition groups that may have been armed or could be armed.

Every occupier controls the population.
Click to expand...
your last sentence is true and should be taken to heart why one party in this country wants to disarm Americans
 
calamity said:
That's an Indian-American. American Indians are something completely different.
Click to expand...

what are you saying? gun safety changes based on ethnicity?
 
TurtleDude said:
what are you saying? gun safety changes based on ethnicity?
Click to expand...

I'd probably argue that American Indians have a completely different take on gun rights than an Indian-American. Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom